Feds propose protecting 2M acres of native prairie

I see lengthy is in the discussion so maybe they don't have an answer but my question is, by how?  Buy out?  A CRP type program.  Or what?

Things like this are such a tough call for me.  I understand our need to protect mother earth and to make sure there's something left for future generations, but they really suck for those who own the land now.

Were farmers planning on draining these areas to plant? How many places are going to be affected that have been farmed before but are not these last few years because of all the precip? Are they trying to lock this up while many places are covered with not necessarily permanent water just to control those acres that could be farmed once we hit a dry cycle again? Maybe I'm way off base here just a few ?s that i got from the first impression of reading that.

Git er done!

Here is what the website says:

The Fish and Wildlife Service is accepting comments on its proposal to create the Dakota Grassland Conservation Area in North Dakota, South Dakota and Montana through the use of voluntary conservation easements. The proposed Dakota Grassland will be part of a landscape-scale, strategic habitat conservation effort to conserve populations of migratory birds by protecting the unique, highly diverse, and endangered ecosystem known as the Prairie Pothole Region. We want to hear from the community and will hold several meetings about the Dakota Grassland Conservation Area proposal from December 14-16, 2010 at various locations

www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/

Does anyone know if it would be open for hunting, other than waterfowl I'm assuming? If so, who is in charge of hunting access . . . the feds or landowner?

http://www.fws.gov/audubon/grasslands/dgca_lpp_fact_sheet_web.pdf

As a voluntary legal agreement be-tween a landowner and the Service, an easement is a perpetual conservation agreement that the Service would buy from a willing landowner within the proposed project area. In conjunction with habitat protection measures, the conservation easements would allow for the continuation of traditional activities such as farming wetlands when dry from natural conditions and livestock graz-ing and haying in grasslands. Unlike fee-title ownership, under a conserva-tion easement the landownership, prop-erty rights, and control of public access
would remain with the landowner. In addition, the property would remain on the local tax roll.Conservation easements limit the type and amount of development that may take place on a property in the future. However, activities that would affect a conservation easement such as roads, pipelines, or wind projects and certain development activities could be allowed under limited circumstances. The Service proposes to identify a re-view process for evaluating activities on all current and future conservation easements in the Prairie Pothole States
of Region 6. This review process would apply to not only conservation easements purchased under the proposed Dakota Grassland project, but also to those ac-quired under other Service programs such as SWAP.

This is a win win for the landowner who's property will never be turned into a city.

Tim, It's done via easements.  Probably not much will actually be bought and owned by the taxpayers.

Gonefshn, Yep, some might wonder if those who lament the limitations in place via long-term easements may not have paid too much for that land.  Easements that impact a farmer from plowing up acreage to plant a crop were typically well paid for as noted in a Bis Tribune article today on this topic.  Payments for the easements can equal 50% of the value of the land.  He/she who buys the land with such an easement should never (IMHO) pay more than what surrounding acres receive, minus the value of the easement.  If they pay full market value for ag land with an easement they did not make a good business decision.  Basically, it would suck a lot less if they had paid less for that land.



As far as I know, these easements do not typically create public hunting opportunities (WPA, WMA, or other type of open to the public property).  It would be tough to write that into the easements under this kind of funding.

Allen Said:
Tim, It's done via easements.  Probably not much will actually be bought and owned by the taxpayers.

Gonefshn, Yep, some might wonder if those who lament the limitations in place via long-term easements may not have paid too much for that land.  Easements that impact a farmer from plowing up acreage to plant a crop were typically well paid for as noted in a Bis Tribune article today on this topic.  Payments for the easements can equal 50% of the value of the land.  He/she who buys the land with such an easement should never (IMHO) pay more than what surrounding acres receive, minus the value of the easement.  If they pay full market value for ag land with an easement they did not make a good business decision.  Basically, it would suck a lot less if they had paid less for that land.



As far as I know, these easements do not typically create public hunting opportunities (WPA, WMA, or other type of open to the public property).  It would be tough to write that into the easements under this kind of funding.

I was just talking with a US Fish and Wildlife gentleman regarding a couple of refuges up around the devils lake area.  Those are easement refuges or limited interest refuges and hunting is prohibited on those.

bckhntr Said:
I was just talking with a US Fish and Wildlife gentleman regarding a couple of refuges up around the devils lake area.  Those are easement refuges or limited interest refuges and hunting is prohibited on those.

Yep, not that it can't be done through easement, I just don't think this particular program has that in its agenda.  I think this one is a bit more purist in nature by simply setting aside land for wildlife.  Each program has what it can and can't do spelled out in the authorizing legislation.  One would have to read that to see if any of these acres would be allowed in as hunting properties.

I have not read the legislation and would be curious to hear if anyone else on here has and can tell me if some of these acres are intended to be multi-purpose with one of the purposes being hunting.

Contrary to swifts belief the Ag groups he mentions do not oppose private individuals from entering into conservation agreements. They all do however have concerns over the "perpetual" easements organizations such as the USF&W and others want to enter into. Perpetual is a long time. If the conservation aspect of the easement is beneficial it perhaps should be continued, if for what ever reason something changes and it is not, then there should be some manner in place to eventually change it. Perpetual easements do not allow that possibility.

We farm land that has 99 year easements on it that were signed back in the 30's and 40's I believe. It has not been much of a problem, although it did prevent us from draining several temporary potholes into one larger one to create a permanant wetlands on a quarter we like to manage for wildlife. We can farm thru those temporary ones if we can which happens many years, but we can not develope them even to create a permanant  year round wetland,????? But hey these easements are an all knowing answer to conservation right? But at least we know that there is an end to this easement at which time it can be reconsidered wether to continue or not. Perpetual takes that option away from ALL future generations.

It will be interesting to see if all the rules governing the certain types of developements (energy related) they say may be permitted are permanantly spelled out at the time of signing or will be allowed to change over time as the USF&W and the political administrations that appoint the people in charge sees fit. Anyone else begin to see where concerns over the perpetual  aspect can arise?

All I know is we better be careful who goes to "protect" us in Washington.  Reminds me of the nasty game out in the patch where we the people were protected by our government from the big bad oil companies as surface owners.  Well, it is reverse.  We should have been protecting ourselves.  The century code is a buggar.

I understand this is something federal but I'm with GST, anything long term needs to be adamantly reviewed.

I'm under the impression the land owner decides about hunting.

I don't think anything changes in that department.

Tim, I think the laws regarding protection of the mineral owners right to access those minerals are state laws.  I suspect if you owned some of the mineral acres under your neighbor's land (because you either bought them or sold the land to him without minerals attached) and he decided to not allow you to drill for oil you would have a little different take on the subject.  Guess that's one of the reasons I am very hesitant to own land without the minerals.  Like you, I wouldn't be very happy with the former landowner who retains the mineral rights and then a month after selling me the land he decides to fire up a gravel pit in my backyard.

gst, odd but I agree with your take on perpetual easements.  Ask Cuba how much they like our Guantanamo base there.  Perpetual is a really long time.  Any thoughts on if your land will have its 99-yr easements rennewed?  One thing I don't agree with you though is in your suggestion that temporary wetlands don't have as much value as a permanent one.  There are differences between the two in their respective ecology.  Permanents are not as "productive" as those temporary ones when they have water in them.  That and there are other differences that make them a necessary component of an overall healthy wetland system.  Not that I am a waterfowl biologist, but have read enough on it to know the different ducks prefer different kinds of surface waters. 

p.s.  Just out of curiousity, but does anyone know what it takes to buy out of one of these kinds of easements?  Guessing it's possible, but may be quite expensive.

Allen,  Much depends on how the land surrounding them is managed. The point being made is that most years under this easement agreement these wetlands including the nonpermanant one that would be made into a permanant one can be farmed if we wanted to. It seems to me the ability to create at least one permanant wetland that is there every year would have been a more consistant benefit. These are wetlands that typically dry up towards the end of may beginning of june even without draining.


These issues are not as black and white and simple as many sportsmen would like to beleive. Remember most all farmers and ranchers are hunters and sportsmen as well. Often times the rancher or farmer is looking at a bigger picture that encompasses far more than simply having a few more ducks or hunting opportunities even though he himself may not be opposed to that very thing. Many of us find that a balance of some sort has to be reached that some of these groups with a sole focas often times do not. And unfortunately the positions of the groups we belong to are developed as a result.